If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
On the much touted 'Global Warming' consensus
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Well it seems obligatory that in any debate about climate change you have the guy who tells us about the 'consensus' amongst scientists that 'global warming' is man-made. So I was shocked (not really) when I read this:
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey%2BLess%2BThan%2BHalf%2Bof%2Ball%2BPublished%2BScientists%2BEndorse%2BGlobal%2BWarming%2BTheory/article8641.htm
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey%2BLess%2BThan%2BHalf%2Bof%2Ball%2BPublished%2BScientists%2BEndorse%2BGlobal%2BWarming%2BTheory/article8641.htm
0
Comments
You could for instance have asked how many scientists believe global warming is not caused by man activities at all. Or that global warming is caused by unusual Sun activity (an old favourite claim of neocons).
The answer, I suspect, would be just about nobody who is not funded by an oil corporation.
Latest Research Erodes CO2's Role in Global Warming
http://www.dailytech.com/Latest+Research+Erodes+CO2s+Role+in+Global+Warming/article8588.htm
and
Major New Theory Proposed to Explain Global Warming
http://www.dailytech.com/Major+New+Theory+Proposed+to+Explain+Global+Warming/article8450.htm
I doubt that this an unbiased report.
Now certainly there's disagreement on scientists between what the impacts of global warming are and how the ratio between natural and man-made impact, but the majority view is that there is some impact.
Not being a climateologist I can't independently verify it myself, so I will tend to go for the majority views (though noting that the media tend to always report the worse case analysis of what they publish)
But apparently some people are so blinded by selfishness that they can't even see that.
Oh well. Let them all drive monster trucks to the grocery store if they really feel it is their 'right' to do so unmolested. Who cares if oil runs out in 30 years instead of 60 eh? Never mind that a viable alternative fuel might not be available yet and that mankind might be drawn to its biggest recession and mass poverty in a century.
It truly is flat earth-ism and and selfishness-driven stupidity on a grand scale.